Do you think extra time in exams is fair?

SATs don't benefit the children; they benefit the government. In the context of primary school, especially, SATs prevent real learning from taking place. My nephew recently received his year three report card, with one target stating he needed to "use more fronted adverbials" in his writing. I don't know about you, but I feel that is a completely inappropriate level of complexity for a seven year old to be having to grasp. The focus is on rote learning ill-suited subject matter; then revising it for the tests, which effectively leaves less time for the children to learn new things that directly benefit their growing-up: social skills, co-operative working, hygiene, healthy living - good food, regular exercise, sports and leisure time. There are things that children should be doing at primary school instead of preparing for SATs that would improve their health and well-being: making them happier, more rounded and better prepared for adolescence. They absolutely need to learn academic skills alongside their 'life skills', but the balance is completely ruined by the existence of SATs in primary education.

Your A and B example is the most flawed logic I have come across lately. Did not expect that from you. Ever heard of ceteris paribus? You can only change one variable at a time, in this case 'processing speed'. My argument is simply 'slow processing speed but otherwise equal => less able at maths'. Don't know why you are getting confused.

Secondly, knowledge of maths is not related to ability at maths. Do you honestly think that someone who knows the quadratic formula is better at maths than someone who doesn't (certeris paribus)?

Yes, if you don't agree with my argument you won't agree with my corollary.

My counterexample is fully valid. Reread the statement in your previous post. I study in more logic based than empirical areas and haven't studied Latin so haven't heard of that phrase before. So now that I've disproved your main statement you're adopting a much weaker version. That's cute. If two people are exactly the same except one can process questions faster then that person is marginally better at that kind of maths.

Yes. There are many factors that contribute to ability.

No that is not a weaker statement. You do not know logic. Once you learn about ceteris paribus you will realise why you are wrong.

Also you can introduce semantics like "marginally" all you want. The fact that you think knowledge of a formula implies ability at maths reveals a lot about the way you think...

It is a weaker statement. I do know logic. I've taken a module on symbolic logic and all of my other modules require logic to some degree. I did spend a couple of seconds learning what ceteris paribus is. Unfortunately it's not relevant to your original statement and has no place in logic.

Thanks for your permission to use words.

I'm getting bored of arguing with you.

My friend is dyslexic, but she has no trouble with numbers, in fact she's very good at them. She gets extra time in maths, and she admits she doesn't need it. That's not really fair. However I do think that in the majority cases it is fair and necessary.

Maths may be about rote learning at GCSE but does that make you more able at maths in general? The answer is no unless you will accept that someone who got higher marks at GCSE than you is more able at maths (ceteris paribus). Btw you definitely dropped marks and you won't be able to fool me otherwise.

You disagree with my definition of 'slow processing speed' that's fine. Now we are no longer arguing about the same thing. Nothing I said was untrue actually, you just think I am saying something I am not. Nowhere did I say you have slow processing times according to the definition I gave to be extremely clear.

I think that people, like you, who struggle with written communication, should be given extra time. So should all the other people in your university department.

P.S. you didn't answer my question:

Plenty of people with no proven disabilities struggle with the latter but have no problem with written communication. Do you think they should get extra time?

"if your brain is slow to process, then obviously you are less able to understand the question than someone else (i.e. someone has to repeat the same thing to you many times for you to process it)"

You shouldn't have brought it up then. Glad you're backing down on that.

No-one lacks ability in the sense you are using. If you don't put the practice in then you will be less able than someone else. Same with anything else - musical instruments, sport, languages etc. Don't confuse yourself again.

Replace A level with STEP then if it makes you feel better. Pretty weak argument you've got there.

Are you assuming I have less experience than you with higher level maths? That would be very foolish of you. If you value experience over logic then that says a lot about you.

If I have to repeat a question twice and you still won't answer it then I lose respect for you.
/discussion

To both of the above: you don't know everything about how he works so he could have some difficulty that you are unaware of. Or you could be right and he's getting it unfairly.

Why do you think it's a poor excuse? She takes ~15% longer to get her ideas down.

What would constitue an 'illegitimate reason'? Well (according to me), perhaps people with ADHD and autism need to accept their limitations and focus on their strengths. If someone could make a case for the specific link between autism and the need for extra time I'd be interested to hear it. I've spent much time with individuals with autism over the years and as far I as can tell individuals with the condition may have impaired functioning in some respects and sometimes augmented in others. (It's swings and roundabouts.) I do not see what differentiates them from individuals with lower ability in some areas.

Then you'd know it's a spectrum and we're all different. I need extra reading time due to my Autism because it can take several attempts for me to read and fully understand the question properly. It has nothing to do with lower ability. If I don't get extra time, I risk running out of time and won't be able to perform to the best of my abilities. How is that really fair?

If I am given a question which has a few paragraphs, I have to read the paragraphs a few times and highlight the keywords to ensure I fully take in what I really need to.

One serious problem for me, is how I understand language. So, if there are questions which have things like methaphors and similies, (even simple ones) I have to read them several times to ensure I really understand what the question is really asking.

And that's even before we go into my sight impairments, which means I read much slower than other people (it takes much more effort for me to read - even with large print) and I need rest breaks because reading is physically tiring.